I think you're wrong on that Rel. Sure, it could have been doctored, but if it involves football and it says "coach" it's Paterno. *Insert something sarcastic and snarky here to try to make you look like an idiot*

Just because Freeh stated it is believed to be Paterno, when Freeh was constantly making narratives the evidence didn't support, we should believe Freeh over the actual document? The URL shows plenty of examples and Curley always uses "Joe" for Paterno, and Schultz always uses "JVP". So "Coach" coming from either one of these two gentlemen is not talking about Paterno.

gotta be careful saying "proven" or "proof". this is not proof. it's evidence. and not great evidence.

Just because Freeh stated it is believed to be Paterno, when Freeh was constantly making narratives the evidence didn't support, we should believe Freeh over the actual document? The URL shows plenty of examples and Curley always uses "Joe" for Paterno, and Schultz always uses "JVP". So "Coach" coming from either one of these two gentlemen is not talking about Paterno.

gotta be careful saying "proven" or "proof". this is not proof. it's evidence. and not great evidence.

And emails from third parties that Paterno knew something is great evidence?

shmenguin wrote:an e-mail saying that paterno was informed by the person who informed him is pretty good, yeah.

I just sent relantel a PM saying that you told me that you were going to rob a bank.

i just sent an email to president nebzar of the braxbap galaxy, saying the same thing about you. see, this is where us being humans with evaluative minds come in and we can judge what's reasonable and what's not. like i said, there isn't "proof" here. we're dealing with what's available.

more importantly, also like i said, you're painting a very unlikely picture about what happened. if you listed every domino that had to fall correctly, it would be a pretty wild story.

count2infinity wrote:You're not being asked to believe anything. Any rational, sane person looks at the e-mail and sees "coach" and knows it's referring to Paterno. I don't know where rel was going with his comment about it not being Paterno when it clearly is. You called him on it, I doubt there's any one else here that believes it, why the need to keep going with it?

Because it's preposterous and makes the audience wonder what other biases are in play?

Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:So whatever you write in an email makes it true? I should send an email that I won a billion dollars. Curley could be just using Paterno's name in order to get a faster response but not actually talk with him.

Come on SDD. So now we're at some people think its not even referring to Paterno (I don't know if that's you or not) and even if it is him, Curley is lying to "get a faster response", and your analogy is this is like writing an email "that says I won a billion dollars so that way I will have a billion dollars."

Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:So whatever you write in an email makes it true? I should send an email that I won a billion dollars. Curley could be just using Paterno's name in order to get a faster response but not actually talk with him.

Come on SDD. So now we're at some people think its not even referring to Paterno (I don't know if that's you or not) and even if it is him, Curley is lying to "get a faster response", and your analogy is this is like writing an email "that says I won a billion dollars so that way I will have a billion dollars."

I am saying that there the evidence of Paterno knowing about 1998 is not concrete evidence that he knew. For that I would need testimony from someone saying they spoke to Paterno about 1998 something Curley has yet to do. Regardless the emails don't give details about what he was being investigated for. How are we to know for sure that Paterno knew that Sandusky was investigated for showering with a boy. I was giving an alternative possible scenario. Can you prove one is more likely than the other?

shmenguin wrote:an e-mail saying that paterno was informed by the person who informed him is pretty good, yeah.

I just sent relantel a PM saying that you told me that you were going to rob a bank.

i just sent an email to president nebzar of the braxbap galaxy, saying the same thing about you. see, this is where us being humans with evaluative minds come in and we can judge what's reasonable and what's not. like i said, there isn't "proof" here. we're dealing with what's available.

more importantly, also like i said, you're painting a very unlikely picture about what happened. if you listed every domino that had to fall correctly, it would be a pretty wild story.

There are plenty of stories of people being incorrectly judged and prosecuted, Duke Lacrosse, Richard Jewel, Hillsborough to name just a few. Look back at them and most happend because dominos fell in a way that caused the results.

I believe that there is enough evidence and other possible interpretations of events that contradict the asserstions made by the OAG and the media.

To believe what you believe is even wilder IMO. You have a man, who wasn't afraid of bad publicity and had a history of behaving ethically when most of his peers benefited from doing the opposite, who choose to knowingly cover up the actions of a person whom he didn't even like. All the while this cover up was accomplished by not telling anyone to keep quiet and by not giving anyone anything of any benefit. then covered up the whole thing in order to protect the football program. But the whole thing then unraveled because the man chose to later tell the truth in court when he could have easily stayed quiet.

shmenguin wrote:an e-mail saying that paterno was informed by the person who informed him is pretty good, yeah.

I just sent relantel a PM saying that you told me that you were going to rob a bank.

i just sent an email to president nebzar of the braxbap galaxy, saying the same thing about you. see, this is where us being humans with evaluative minds come in and we can judge what's reasonable and what's not. like i said, there isn't "proof" here. we're dealing with what's available.

more importantly, also like i said, you're painting a very unlikely picture about what happened. if you listed every domino that had to fall correctly, it would be a pretty wild story.

There are plenty of stories of people being incorrectly judged and prosecuted, Duke Lacrosse, Richard Jewel, Hillsborough to name just a few. Look back at them and most happend because dominos fell in a way that caused the results.

I believe that there is enough evidence and other possible interpretations of events that contradict the asserstions made by the OAG and the media.

To believe what you believe is even wilder IMO. You have a man, who wasn't afraid of bad publicity and had a history of behaving ethically when most of his peers benefited from doing the opposite, who choose to knowingly cover up the actions of a person whom he didn't even like. All the while this cover up was accomplished by not telling anyone to keep quiet and by not giving anyone anything of any benefit. then covered up the whole thing in order to protect the football program. But the whole thing then unraveled because the man chose to later tell the truth in court when he could have easily stayed quiet.

For every story of being incorrectly judged there are 10 being correctly judged. I'm not sure what you're railing against. You think JoePa is innocent and others don't. Neither side is going to convince the other at this point in time because all the facts aren't known. Give it up.

Pavel Bure wrote:For every story of being incorrectly judged there are 10 being correctly judged. I'm not sure what you're railing against. You think JoePa is innocent and others don't. Neither side is going to convince the other at this point in time because all the facts aren't known. Give it up.

So we should make a judgment without a complete set of facts? Can't think you really meant that, did you?

A good film recommendation for those here.... Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. How one man with doubts persuaded an entire jury dead-set against him by establishing doubt for each piece of evidence.

Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:So whatever you write in an email makes it true? I should send an email that I won a billion dollars. Curley could be just using Paterno's name in order to get a faster response but not actually talk with him.

Come on SDD. So now we're at some people think its not even referring to Paterno (I don't know if that's you or not) and even if it is him, Curley is lying to "get a faster response", and your analogy is this is like writing an email "that says I won a billion dollars so that way I will have a billion dollars."

I am saying that there the evidence of Paterno knowing about 1998 is not concrete evidence that he knew. For that I would need testimony from someone saying they spoke to Paterno about 1998 something Curley has yet to do. Regardless the emails don't give details about what he was being investigated for. How are we to know for sure that Paterno knew that Sandusky was investigated for showering with a boy. I was giving an alternative possible scenario. Can you prove one is more likely than the other?

This is not a reasonable way of looking at the issues IMO. I also believe I can safely conclude that your position is in the very small minority, were you to present this specific fact pattern/emails to the public. I sure wouldn't want to defend your position.

But like shmenguin said, this isn't particularly productive and I think it better if I disengage. I respect your opinion.

Pavel Bure wrote:For every story of being incorrectly judged there are 10 being correctly judged. I'm not sure what you're railing against. You think JoePa is innocent and others don't. Neither side is going to convince the other at this point in time because all the facts aren't known. Give it up.

So we should make a judgment without a complete set of facts? Can't think you really meant that, did you?

A good film recommendation for those here.... Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. How one man with doubts persuaded an entire jury dead-set against him by establishing doubt for each piece of evidence.

No I'm saying that people think he's innocent and guilty. Right now the facts aren't out so they're fighting over nothing. Nothing anyone could say would convince person A that JoePa isn't innocent. In the same vein Person B believes without a doubt that JoePa is guilty. Nothing being said by anyone is going to convince the other at this point in time. They're arguing over nothing.

I'm sure I can conceive of a scenario where the officials at PSU, through a series of logical decisions, followed the course of action that they did with regards to Sandusky.

But it's impossible to argue that throughout the course of those years that they made the right decisions. We don't know the degree of maliciousness or callusness in their actions. But we know that there were multiple allegations against Sandusky that should have prevented all those incidents that occurred after (1998 probably) 2001 (definitely).

There's no element of he said she said in people's condemnation of the results. Kids were molested, allegations were made, kids got assaulted, allegations were made, kids got assaulted, then **** hit the fan.

SDD, unfortunately you're in a lose-lose position. You're already behind the 8-ball because you've been labeled a "PSU lunatic", so whatever information you produce is met with a high amount of scorn and suspicion. You also seem to be the only one in this thread that has completely kept up with every facet of this situation, read almost every piece of information regarding the case, and have formed your own opinion upon doing so, and for that I commend you. While I don't necessarily see this situation from the same angle as you and relantel may, I certainly respect the fact that you've done so much reading on the matter and have kept up to date on the latest information available and posted any interesting articles you read here.

NCAA attorney Everett Johnson Jr. argued that the plaintiffs' claims the NCAA held a "gun to the head" of Penn State forcing the university to agree to the unprecedented sanctions is false and that Penn State simply had a choice between two undesirable options – sign the consent decree with provisions like a ban on bowl games or see the entire football program suspended.